Here's a collection of some threads about the voice. Sadly, not much is happening atm.
127 upmarseys, 378 comments, 22 hours old.
[score hidden] Seriously, Spigelman is so out of touch. Most people gave up on the legal challenge issue months ago. There are plenty of better reasons to vote no than that.
[score hidden] No there aren't.
[score hidden] Apparently 60% of Australia disagree with you.
[score hidden] 60% of Australians are wrong then
[score hidden] Its not fear mongering if things us No voters are concerned about are the very things the designers of the voice have said. Watching videos of Teela Reid, Thomas Mayo, Marcia Langton and Noel Pearson talk about the voice and the powers it will have, has done more to seal my No vote than any of the things the No campaign has brought to the table.
[score hidden] I don't get why people are so against reparations- like I know it's not our generation but the current generation of Indigenous Australians are still absolutely reeling the effects of the stolen generations
[score hidden] NAL but half my family are. My understanding of the voice is that It establishes three things: There is a body of parliament called the voice. It can make submissions to parliament regarding legislation that will effect indigenous peoples. The government of the day has the power to do whatever it wants in regard to indigenous people (ie can ignore the voice entirely if it wants to) I've heard people describe it as an indigenous power grab? The only power it grants is to government, it just formalises a consultive process within parliament regarding laws that effect indigenous Australians.
[score hidden] This! It's not at all as complicated as people are making it out to be. The mental gymnastics No voters are going through is astounding to me.
[score hidden] All the No voters in this comments thread are just continuing to propagate fear/scaremongering. It's all they have because deep down, they're just bigots who don't actually want to do anything progressive for indigenous plights. It's as simple as that.
[score hidden] Calling no voters bigots is like Clinton calling trump voters deplorables, you're alienating significant chunks of swing voters which you can't do when you need a double majority to pass a referendum
[score hidden] I know it's bad politics and Clinton was a shite candidate (something something hot sauce) but she wasn't wrong in the slightest
[score hidden] It doesn't formalise it, it embeds it in the constitution. Why should there be a particular group of representatives from a particular race that gets to influence parliament outside of normal democratic pluralism? Why does it need to be permanent? If it's effective, should it not be temporary?
[score hidden] Because nothing else has worked? Because we're not singling out a race, but a group of people who have been mistreated for over 100 years? Because this "influence" is purely advisory and is just a "voice" in parliament? Because it's not permanent when taking the long view and any supporter of this would love to see the day where this wasn't necessary and could be removed?
[score hidden] We are, quite literally and expressly, singling out a race. There is not a single aboriginal person over the age of 100. If the influence is purely advisory, is this to say that there is no influence - as indicated by your use of parentheses? If so, what does it achieve but wasting resources? It can't be removed - it's in the constitution. What happens if and when the βgapβ is closed? Or other races begin underperforming based on equality of outcome measures - which ignore individual choices? Do we get a voice for those races?
[score hidden] "Why should there be a particular group of representatives from a particular race that gets to influence parliament outside of normal democratic pluralism?" Because they are the descendants of the traditional owners of the land which our ancestors* took by force. Our ancestors* have done nothing but try to erase them and their culture from history. Even now we are destroying their traditional lands via resource extraction (e.g. fracking in the Beetaloo basin which is heavily opposed by the traditional owners of the land but the NT government is just walking right over them) and acting like we know better than they do (e.g. force Income Management cards, removing kids from their families, etc). "Why does it need to be permanent? If it's effective, should it not be temporary?" Because the issues that colonisation has caused for them is multigenerational and our government for the most part has fallen into the "why should we bother about stuff beyond our current term?" way of thinking.
*By "our ancestors" I mean the European colonisers. Some of us are not direct descendants of them but we still benefit from their actions today.
/r/AustralianPolitics - "Conservative think tank IPA accused of indoctrinating school children with Voice to Parliament lesson plan"
The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has been accused of trying to indoctrinate school children by distributing a classroom lesson plan that teaches students how to mount arguments against the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
The conservative think tank has paid for multiple Facebook and Instagram ads promoting high school education materials it says gives teachers "the cowtools you need to walk your class through both sides of the referendum". The ads link to a free, 34-page teacher guide and workbook the IPA has written for year 9 to 12 students in English, Australian History, Civics and Indigenous studies.
While the lesson plan promises to teach students about all sides of the debate, the main written exercise asks them to present the "No" case. It asks students to refute a series of statements supporting the Voice using an almost 1,000-word summary of various "No" arguments. Students are then asked to rank the arguments in order of persuasiveness and then "respectfully discuss with your peers". They are not asked to repeat the exercise from the "Yes" perspective.
Students are also asked to complete a true/false quiz that includes the statements, "Anyone who votes No in the Voice Referendum must be racist" and "There are no acceptable arguments for voting No in the Voice Referendum". [snip]
107 upmarseys, 232 comments, 1 day old.
[-8] It's a free country, putting out materials to support either side of any public debate (not just this one) is allowed.
[+7] Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's right. Students should be taught about the referendum in the most neutral way possible. I like the idea of having kids construct arguments for and against the voice, but only if they have to do both and the materials they are given are neutral.
[-7] Sooooo they're teaching children critical thinking and how to debate? What a racist thing to do, how dare they teach our children to argue both sides, how bigoted. They know they must teach only group think and confirmation bias! π They're challenging children to argue a point they may not even agree with, that is the BEST way to teach critical thinking. And school is 100% the place for political debate, discussion and challenging widespread opinions Edit: ok here's a better way to say what I'm saying. You must be able to plays devils advocate with any topic presented, if you can't, you need to look further into the topic to understand it better and form an informed opinion
[+20] You're probably the first person to associate critical thinking with an IPA publication. I guess they could just let the teachers get on with teaching instead, including critical thinking (which they already do.....)
[-5] Indoctrination is only allowed one way - regards all the woke companies.
[+10] Yeah, how dare we ask kids to be nice to each other! What a bunch of woke, communist, lizard alien, Jewish, propaganda! Seriously, the things you guys complain about, how are you not embarrassed to say such nonsense?
r/Australia discussion
447 upmarseys, 168 comments, 1 day old.
[+10] Always fun to see a thread on the Voice so early in the weekend; there's a good chance some actually good faith commentary will take place before the No campaign clocks in to work for the day. (Although it's possible they don't get any penalty rates, so maybe some choose not to in a twisted form of ironic solidarity.) Anyone shocked or in any way surprised by this move from the IPA needs to have a brief history lesson in all the ways that that organisation is deeply tied to the Liberal Party and the Capital class.
[+15] it's quite simple, I unironically believe that anything involved with conservativism is bad and anyone who votes for it is dumb. Prove me wrong, folks. prove me wrong.
[+6] Conservatives are the enemies of humanity. It must be exhausting for them, constantly having their amygdalas hijacked by fantasizing about what other people get up to in their private lives in the privacy of their own homes.
[-7] Ironic you'd make this comment on yet another example of bad faith commentary by the Yes campaign. The No campaign is brain washing our kids!
Here's some stuff from I week ago that I had saved in a draft. It's probably not up to date.
/r/PoliticsDownUnder - 'No Vote' cheerleaders gallery. #VoteYES
60 upmarseys, 40 comments, 20 hours old.
[+2] Shit c*nt.
[+0] Don't be a strag, let people vote what they want, we live in a democratic country.
Mark Latham has gotta have one of the weirdest political journeys in Australian history.
@fine_wesome in shambles
Not a lot in that thread, but it did get crossposted.
/r/Australian - "'No Vote' cheerleaders gallery. #VoteYES"
69 updooterinos, 420 comments, 5 hours old.
[+1] Is that because you experience change anxiety, or is there a good reason to vote No? I'm yet to hear one.
[+6] Please... let me know a good reason to vote yes... I haven't heard one yet.
[+1] the best reason to vote no is the voice wont change sh1t its just the next in the long line of non-solutions to the unfixable problem of abo disadvantage, which is more likely than not caused by things that can't be admitted on this site
[+1] Found the racist
[+1] Yeah what of it
Vote Yes: You're racist.
Vote No: You're racist.
Seems like no matter what anybody does they're racist. This entire thing has become silly. Both sides are like whining little children.
[-3] Vote no cheerleaders: Literal neo nazis
[+24] Great to see so many people opposed to the racist voice. It's a big NO from me.
[-5] You're not a racist if you vote NO. But you are selfish and probably don't give a frick about the damage done to our first nations people over the past 200 years in Australia and how we can begin to fix it.
My tax dollars beg to differ
[+13] Did you know that Hitler ate toast? if you eat toast you are associating with Hitler
[+2] Been looking for a single braincell in this comment and still haven't found it
Now to some other crap.
/r/PoliticsDownUnder - "You're the Voice that will make history. On 14 October, we know we all can stand together with the power to be powerful. History is calling, so Vote Yes. Are you in? John Farnham is."
55 upmarseys, 29 comments. 5 hours old.
Nothing too interesting, just lots of comments downmarseyd for saying no.
Also see this post from @PaulKeyedting
Cross posted to:
/r/FriendlyJordies 
- "You're the Voice that will make history. On 14 October, we know we all can stand together with the power to be powerful. History is calling, so Vote Yes. Are you in? John Farnham is."
55 upmarseys, 74 comments, 6 hours old.
[+24] How good is it to see a positive ad rather than the usual scare mongering negative ads that insist some boogey man is coming to take your franking credits/mortgage/negative gearing/kidneys etc
[+9] NOT MY FRANKING CREDITS!!!
[+18] This is a really well done ad. Pity the cookers won't watch it, not would they βgetβ it, even if they did.
[-8] Speaking of songs, here's some lyrics from our other unofficial National Anthem, "I am Australian". We are one, but we are many. And from all the lands on earth we come. We'll share a dream and sing with one voice. "I am, you are, we are Australian". A yes vote, which gives an extra voice to one group based on their race, destroys that 'one voice'.
[+11] Where'd you get this talking point from, Peta Credlin?
Check out these posts if you've missed any:
Now they're arguing over land acknowledgements lmbo
: AustralianPolitics New Voice Newspoll just dropped: 42% Yes 58% No - CRIPPLING Blow!
Right wing commentator Andrew Bolt proposes gassing the boongs
Yes Campaign now using John Farnham's 'You're the Voice' as official soundtrack
Voiceposting infographic- "The most common misinformation about the Voice to Parliament Corrected"
Voiceposting
- will the world condemn Australia if the Voice fails? r/australianpolitics discusses
Wake up babe, it's time for another Voicepost 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So this is going to be the only thing that "works," but it's also just an advisory board that can't do anything?
The game here is pretty obvious. There's already strong social pressure to go along with "indigenous" activists no matter what nonsense they're spewing. It's a minor annoyance in the US, but it's becoming a core identity trait of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Canada even, as a matter of policy, gives shorter sentences to male feminists and murderers based on their race.
Anything the "voice" board says or does will be pushed and shilled by the press, academia, and most major politicians, and opposing it will be considered racist. It won't be direct power, it will be a formalized version of the social power that shitlibs are so good at wielding against normal people. And saying "no, frick off" will be much easier now than when this shit is in the constitution.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's one step towards having your country be perpetually divided on racial lines. I can't think of anything more destructive to national unity and orderly functioning than this shit. I have no idea why so many places have been convinced that it's a good idea to go down this path.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Maybe, just maybe, you should consider listening to Aboriginal voices?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They clearly know what's best, that's why they got dominated by British excons hundreds of years ago
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Done
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fiscally Left
Socially Right
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Just let them have casinos to uplift the downtrodden indigenous peoples. It worked in the US.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
And it's why no !leafs should ever call the cops on a male feminist, just get some rope and take care of it youself
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yeah I'd be very afraid of this law in the current climate.
No fricking way.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Reading about the Voice, I'm also not sure what it does that couldn't just be done by any government that cares to do it without enshrining it in the constitution. What's stopping an elected government in Australia from just establishing an Aboriginal Policy Advisory Committee voluntarily and having them review legislation before bringing it to parliament?
(I know what the answer is, btw. It's that they need to force it on their political enemies as well. Such a committee would be subject to the whims of the electorate via the elected parties of the day and you wouldn't want it to be ignored or disbanded based on its ineffectiveness.)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I love that that's Yes's actual argument for enshrining it into the constitution, they just make it sound like a good thing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Australian yesvoters should bring out the ground penetrating radar.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
tf?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
A few articles:
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
The criminal code and Supreme Court precedent require judges to consider race (particularly indigenous status) as a mitigating factor at every stage of proceedings. To be clear, minorities are given extra lenience based on race in general, I just highlighted just how bad that can be.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context